The research question

The research, particularly qualitative research, that is carried out across Pakistan, must face scrutiny that could strain non-research from bad-research

There are not two but three ways of looking at the same picture: there is good-research, bad-research and non-research. What we have as good research is original, not plagiarised, introspection into a written work, an emerging issue or an epoch-making event

Research is that horrifying Frankenstein at large which is hunting down everyone in the education department. It is the prerequisite of getting hired, getting promoted, getting an increment, and, not to mention, getting respect.

The education sector is flooded with jobless, fanatic graduates who want to be, one way or another, part of the teaching fraternity. Here, “better never than late” firmly holds the ground as the late-comers usually end up in being under-paid employees of the private not-so-English-medium schools, opened in every nook and corner in the country. Just like those graduates in Pharmacy who are waiting on the customers in local pharmacies and handing them over the already-prescribed drugs, but initially started off their studies dreaming of landing in a teaching hospital for house jobs. To bridle this mob, to strain the useless from the useful, the essential from the non-essential, and to raise the bar higher, a new criterion is set every now and then, making it further difficult for the new lot to enter a profession.

Research, be it for MPhil or PhD dissertation or for a publication, as the criterion of hiring and promotion, has become a headache: ask any of the teachers what has been their largest fear and the answer would be “research,” partly because of the bad research teachers that they had once upon a time, who could not teach them what research stood for due to their inadequacy or incapacity, and partly because of the bad environment in which they live, where those who have written dissertations and published papers are unwilling to share how and where to get published, fearing the empowerment of the seemingly harmless yet-to-be-published researchers.

There are not two but three ways of looking at the same picture: there is good-research, bad-research and non-research. What we have as good research is original, not plagiarised, introspection into a written work, an emerging issue or an epoch-making event. It has an impact. Bad research poorly meets the criterion of a good research, lacks novelty, and delivers low-quality paper. Non-research is, however, something which is done in the name of research on a search-engine, i.e., Google, which is later “rewritten” and “edited” to get published in a local journal.

Ask what the researcher wants to do, and they would give you a list of verbal vows ranging from their commitment to make a contribution in the realm of knowledge to their ability to spot a research gap so that their insight could make a difference in the understanding of the world where we live. However, just like those young doctors who once presumed the suffering humanity as a motivation and took up the profession of medicine to put an end to traumatic pains, but wind up neglecting their duties and their patients to a point where those waiting for them could die, the true motive of the researchers remain dubious. Anyhow, here is what the true answers of the questions raised in synopsis would look like had the researcher been telling the truth.

What do you want to do? MPhil/PhD. Why would you do it? To get promoted. Why is it important? Without it, there would be no increment. Who has done the similar work? It is I who is rewriting the dissertation (submitted by someone, somewhere in the world) that “inspired” me to conduct the same study but (obviously) in my own words. How are you going to do it? The method is rewriting with rigorous editing so that the flow of ideas/information can be altered to the point where the possibility of tracing the original (research work) would eliminate. How long will it take? It depends on how soon one comes across a complete paper (from Abstract to Bibliography). Anytime, from a month to a year.

Indeed, research is not what but why: if “why” someone is researching is known, all will be known. A researcher once shared her secret of writing so many research papers: it is your paper; write whatever you like (who knows it anyway), but do not get caught! Once you decipher how to do it, you would be flooding the market with more and more of (substandard!) research work. (When no work is done during research, can it be called “work”?)

When Pakistan-aka-Pornistan topped the list of most porn searching countries back in 2014, disclosed by Google in the first month of 2015 (some still call it a Jewish propaganda), the authorities took notice and banned the porn sites; we, with our ability to find the holes in the loops, quickly came up with the solution of proxy servers and started appearing as “others” in the global village, leaving the blame on them for the filth we devour. In the same fashion, our hyper-active researchers, looked not for what is worth researching but how to pass their imitation as original before the not-so-expert-experts: how does the board/department/external supervisor find out if the submission is original: researcher’s own work? The plagiarism software! And, the very next thing to know is how to befool the technology.

Plagiarism generally stands for verbal and intellectual theft which implies that the researcher must not only abstain from lifting the exact wording, of any source, but also avoid stealing ideas. A much-loathed crime that can send the criminal behind the bars anywhere only deems to send the culprit under the gown in Pakistan, i.e., s/he gets her/his degree.

Plagiarism, in this part of the world, is confined to the theft of words only, as it is the only thing the software out there can catch. The art of not getting caught while using someone else’s idea is the prerequisite for writing a thesis here. However, we produce such low-quality students-aka-researchers that they remain unable to even meet this bare minimum. In a supervised work finding fifty-percent plagiarism is a normal thing. And, surprisingly, some researchers are so dull that even copy-writing gives them a headache.

Interestingly, the libraries that hold indigenous research work are always on high-alert (very secretive, very sensitive), and locks them away to avoid any exposure to public. It is a well-known fact that when a visitor, is given a much-requested, much-needed access to an invaluable research paper, mostly most of the chapters (of the given work) and often the whole thesis is found missing. The ethics of conducting research are one thing, and the social ethics another: we proudly fiddle with both. The intellectual thieves do not mind physically carrying away someone else’s brainchild if it could be of any use.

A lot of research is done in Pakistan. Bad research is better than non-research, if the bad could be separated from the worst. The questionable research that is carried out across Pakistan must face scrutiny that could strain non-researchers from researchers. Lately, HEC is boasting of its plan to have some 5,000 PhDs in Pakistan: the idea sounds good, but is it a good idea? How long would we continue prioritising quantity over quality? And, let me warn you, HEC is aiming at its own goal, ignoring the fact that the market is flooding with graduates who are frantically getting themselves enrolled in MPhil program as there is nothing else to do, and do not intend to stop till they get a Doctorate. However, the question would remain: would we glorify someone just because s/he has submitted a manuscript of desired length or would we come up with a way to identify and prevent intellectual theft, or do we gave to wait till the west come up with a software to trace back ideas?